Below is the OCR text representation for this newspapers page.

THE HISTORY OF THE STANDARD OIL LETTERS New Evidence of Dealings for Cash With Legislators Elected by the People, With Corrupt corporations, Revealed in Black and White. Archhold, the Present Standard Oil Head. Wrote Instructions Regarding Legislation to Foraker and Others, and Then Paid Royally. r-r-* HIS is a plain, straightfor ward narration of facts. Some of these facts are well known; many of them have not been made public before. Taken altogether in the light of later events, they made it possible for the first time to write a clear, connected history of a crime against popular govern ment. William Randolph Hearst, who first made public the facts of this Standard Oil conspiracy, aptly characterized it as an “OUT RAGE AGAINST THE SANCTI TY OF OUR CITIZENSHIP, AGAINST THE INTEGRITY OF OUR GOVERNMENT.’’ There is no greater danger to our Republic,’’ he said, “than this mighty power of money exercised for evil.’* The duty of telling the truth, and the whole truth, in a matter ' of this kind, is far from being a pleasant one, but it is a duty that ought to be performed. It will lead into some dark labyrinths of American politics. It will involve the careers of many who, equally with Foraker and Sib ley and Bailey, have been trusted by their neighbors and honored by their country. It will, in some cases, involve the names of men now dead. But it will recite nothing but ab solute facts, nothing without author itative data, based on documentary evidence, and reveal such truths as ought in honesty and propriety to be revealed. *• * * Joseph B. Foraker, Senator from Ohio, was shown to be taking money from Archbold; Joseph C. Sibley, a representative from Pennsylvania, was shown by correspondence to be, in the words of Mr. Hearst, “a wretch ed little political spy, introduced into Con gress by the Standard Oil Company to re port to them on all legislation in which they had an interest.” * * * Joseph Bailey, Senator from Texas, regard ed by many as the most brilliant man in the tipper House, and hailed, in this same oil-be daubed correspondence, as the coming leader of his party, was placed on the rail of public obloquy and ridden outside the bounds of na tional honor. Mr. Hearst disregarded party lines in making these disclosures. Each of these three men was shown by documentary proof to have been taking mon ey secretly to represent interests opposed to those that he was sworn publicly to uphold. Each, in his own way, paid the bitter penalty. But what about John D. Archbold, the man who "handled the money;” the man who with such amazing ease and frequency drew SIO.OOO certificates of deposit by which elec tions and even laws were influenced What penalty was placed upon him? * * * Chance has placed in my way some ex traordinary documents. It happens that those documents consist almost entirely of the surreptitious correspondence of John D. Archbold—who was a Methodist deacon on one hand, and a purchaser of unscrupulous politicians and corrupt laws on the other. In the conspiracy against popular government that these letters reveal, the personality of Archbold becomes too trivial and unimpor tant for consideration. ® * * When Hanna made his Napoleonic entry into national politics and took the control of the State machine away from Foraker, th* Oil Trust, with characteristic breadth of mind, kept both factions in its way and is sued orders simultaneously and with equal grace to both of the leaders. Let us, for th* (FROM HEARST’S MAGAZINE FOR MAY) By J. E FACSIMILE OF MARK HANNA LETTER ASKING FOR STANDARD OIL MONEY TO HELP HIS PERSONAL CAMPAIGN UsrJTBD States Senate, . C 0 '-P ,9 • * /— *- / */ Z*7"~' , Jp" < CZ Tx^c (j—&> y 4-*'*■*-• A S"“" ' u ' a * Z&m. /I * J -f4>. ——*> *o t5-x? 4*T4-*£rZ. J —>>. 75- i ’ . John D. Archbold, Esq.—My Dear John: lam in receipt of yours of the 18th inst., with enclosures as stated, for which lam obliged. lam “holding the bag,” and this is going to be an expensive campaign. I can see where I will land before the thing is over, so I have no doubt I will have to call again. I feel a delicacy about this, as it is my funeral. I can beg for others better than when I have a personal interest. There are many important interests in this fight. Should Johnson carry the Legislature, corporations will catch it, as I am their representative so called. Sincerely yours, M. A. HANNA. The year does not appear in the date of the above letter, but the letter was probably written in the Ohio State campaign of 1903. These Letters Prove That Senator J. B. Foraker, of Ohio, When a Leading Member of the U. S. Senate, Was Paid in One Year at Least $44,500 by the Standard Oil Trust. His Salary as Senator at the Same Time Was $5,000. The Bible Says “No Man Can Serve Two Masters.” Which Master.DO YOU THINK Senator Foraker Really Served? sake of historical accuracy, take Archbold’s letters to the two Ohio Senators at this period in their chronological order: The first is to Foraker: 26 Broadway, New York. January 20, 1899. My Dear Senator: I have your very kind note of the 18th, for which please accept thanks. I am sure that you will watch care fully every phase of the matter, and will leave nothing undone. We may want to talk with you regarding a special feature of the case within the next week or so. Will it be at all pos sible for you to come here for a short interview? Very truly yours, Jno. D. Archbold. Hon. J. B. Foraker, Senate Chamber, Washington, D. C. This letter, according to the position taken by Foraker when Mr. Hearst first made it public, merely proved that in January, 1899, Senator Foraker was working for the Oil Trust. ‘‘That I was so employed and presumably compensated for my services was common knowledge at the time,” said Foraker; “at least, I never made any effort to conceal the fact. On the contrary, I was pleased to have people know that I had such clients.” As a matter of fact, on the Bth of March, 1899, less than two months after Foraker’s receipt of instructions from Archbold to “watch carefully” and “leave nothing un done,” the following dispatch, sent out by the Associated Press, had been published in the New York newspapers: Cincinnati, 0., March B.—A report reached here from Columbus today that Senator Foraker had been re tained by the Standard Oil Co. as one of the counsel for the trust. Senator Foraker showed much irri tation tonight when asked if the re port was true. “It is impertinent,” he declared. “You might as well ask me how much money I have in my pocket.' The re port is not true.” There we see just how “pleased” Foraker had been to have people know that he had such “clients.” « # » From his desk at No. 26 Broadway, New York, Archbold continued to pull the wires, to write the letters and to send out the cer tificates of deposit with which legislatures were controlled, Congressmen were elected, Senators were chosen, and Judges were ap pointed. As the Standard Oil Company was Democratic in the South, and Republican in Pennsylvania, so, in Ohio, it was strictly non factional. At the same time that it was giv ing money and orders to Foraker, leader of one group, it was giving orders—and as we shall see later, money also—to Hanna, leader of the dominant faction. Witness the follow ing letter to Senator Hanna: 26 Broadway, New York. January 19, 1900. Dear Senator: The matters regarding which I THE ATLANTA GEORGIAN AND NEWS. SATURDAY", DECEMBER 28, 1912 wanted to talk with you this after noon are those of threatened and very objectionable legislation at Columbus. The first is a bill introduced by Mr. Russell, of Meigs, amending the so called “anti-trust” law in away that would be most objectionable to every corporate interest in the state. Prob ably you are familiar with this bill. The second is a most malicious resolution for an investigation com mittee to be headed by Griftin, of Lucas, giving them power to investi gate pretty much everything within the state, from the supreme court down. The resolution does not limit the expense of the investigation, and authorizes the employment of coun sel. It is said to be the intention of the committee to employ Mr. Monnett as its counsel. We want to enlist you actively and promptly to the defeat of these measures. They are undoubted ly inspired by Monnett and his follow ers, and their purpose is unquestion ably of the most vicious character. That appointment of the “maraud ing” committee comes up by agree ment on the 25th, so that it, as well as the other, should be attended to very promptly. Will you do every thing possible to compass their de feat? Shall be glad to hear from you promptly. I enclose you clipping from the Plaindealer describing the Willis reso lution. Very truly yours, Jno. D. Archbold. Hon. M. A. Hanna, Washington, D C. * * * Act “actively and promptly,” Senator Hanna, “leave nothing undone,” Senator Foraker, “to compass the defeat” of such honest measures. The edict of Archbold has gone forth! * # * Hanna was an important general upon the field of action, but he was not the only one. He was not even alone in his own depart ment. Read this letter to Foraker, written four weeks later, during that same session of congress and of the Columbus legislature: 26 Broadway, New York. (Personal) February 16, 1900. My Dear Senator: Here is still another very objection able bill. It is so outrageous as to be ridiculous, but it needs to be looked after, and I hope there will be no dif ficulty in killing it. Am anxious to hear from you as to the situation as a whole. I Very truly yours, Jno D. Archbold. Hon. J. B. Foraker, 1500 Sixteenth St., Washington, D. C. The bill here mentioned, being both “out rageous” and “ridiculous” in the eyes of the Standard Oil Company, was probably another bill empowering the people to participate somewhat in their own public affairs and limiting somewhat the absolute control of public officials, courts and legislatures by criminal corporations. * * * In regard to this next letter, however, there! is less doubt and more definiteness. 26 Broadway, New York. My Dear Senator: Attorney General Sheets has written a letter to Mr. Kline, in-which he asks to have a time fixed for the oral argu ment of the contempt case. If this ar gument is to be simply a formal mat ter, we have no objection to it; other wise, it might be well to have it post poned as long as possible, especially until after the next national and state conventions. We thought you should know about this before going to Ohio. Very truly yours, Jno. D. Archbold. Hon. J. B. Foraker, 1500 Sixteenth St., Washington, D. C. Nine days later Senator Foraker had an other “very objectionable” bill to “take care of. ” A senator had to work to earn his certificates of deposit. Serving the Standard Oil was no sinecure. * * ♦ March 8, 1900. My Dear Senator: I beg to enclose you herewith letter from our counsel, Mr. Elliott, with copy of another very objectionable bill recently introduced at Columbus. There will undoubtedly be a uniform sentiment against it in the oil section. Hope you can take care of it with the others. Very truly yours, Jno. D. Archbold. Hon. J. B. Foraker, Senate Chamber, Washington, D. C. The very next day he received another let ter from Archbold as follows: March 9, 1900. My Dear Senator: I have your favor of last night with enclosure, which letter, with letter from Mr. Elliott commenting on same, I beg to send you herewith. Perhaps it would be better to make a demonstration against the whole bill, but certainly, the ninth clause, to which Mr. Elliott refers, should be stricken out, and the same is true of House Bill No. 500, also introduced by Mr.. Price, in relation to foreign corporations, in which the same ob jectionable clause occurs. Am glad to hear that you think that the situation is fairly well in hand. Very truly yours, Jno. D. Archbold. Another bill was so “objectionable.” The people had become so meddlesome in their own business that Mr. Archbold advised busy Senator Foraker to “make a demonstration” and also to have certain clauses stricken out and generally to look alive. * * * Three days after writing the letter to For- 19 I—MAGAZINE SECTION •‘Gratification Over Favorable Outcome of Affairs” Meant in One Case a Certificate of Deposit of $14,500 to Ex- Senator Foraker. x Mark Hanna “Held the Bag,” “And as This Is Going To Be an Expensive Campaign,” He Tells Archbold He May Have to Call Again. • aker that we have just read, Arch bold sent the following letter to Hanna: 26 Broadway, New York. March 12, 1900. , My Dear Senator: ■> I hope everything is go ing well at Columbus. There are a number of the vexatious bills there and we are resting on your statement that they are all well in hand. \ One of our people writes that it is a little doubtful as to how the Hon. Ralph D. Cole, of Findlay, will vote on the Russell bill. He says that H. C. Crouse, editor Findlay *' Republi can,” and formerly chair man Republican State Com mittee, is very close to Cole, and that Crouse is a warm friend of yours. It occurs to me that if you think it worth while, you might ask Mr. Crouse to try and see Mr. Cole immediately and persuade him to vote against the bill. You will know best, however, as to all matters per taining to the different things there. Very truly yours, Jno. D. Archbold. Hon. M. A. Hanna, v The Arlington, V Washington, D. C. Again “vexatious bills,” again an interfer ing public, again legislators who are doubt ful in their feudal thraldom to the trust and who are exhibiting anarchistic indications of independence. Up with the reserves. A Hai< na to the rescue! The simple sordid tale is best told in Aeoli bold’s own language: March 26,-1900. . ;r Hon. J. B. Foraker, * 1500 Sixteenth St., ■ Washington, D. C. S Dear Senator: In accordance with our under standing, I now beg to enclose you cer tificate of deposit to your favor for $15,000. Kindly acknowledge receipt and oblige. Very truly yours, Jno. D. Archbold. At the end of another three weeks we have this: April 17, 1900. My Dear Senator 1 I enclose you certificate of deposit to your favor for $14,500. We are greatly at a loss in the matter, but I send this, and will be glad to have a frank talk with you when opportunity offers, and if you so desire. I need scarcely again express our great gratification over the favorable outcome of affairs. Very truly yours, Jno. D. Archbold. Hon. J. B. Foraker, 1500 Sixteenth St., Washington, D. C. Later in the year comes this: November 26, 1900. My Dear Senator: In pursuance of our understanding in our talk over the telephone today, I now beg to enclose your certificate of deposit to your favor for SIO,OOO. Truly yours, Jno. D. Archbold. Hon. J. B. Foraker, 1500 Sixteenth St., Washington, D. C. And again in this same year: » December 11, 1900. My Dear Senator: Referring to our telephonic conver sation today, I now beg to enclose you certificate of deposit to your favor for $5,000. Very truly yours, Jno. D. Archbold. Hon. J. B. Foraker, 1500 Sixteenth St., Washington. D. C